Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,302   Posts: 1,536,198   Online: 693
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    11

    Interesting article on what Kodak could learn from Polaroid

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...58f_story.html

    The article is written by Christopher Bonanos, author of the book, "Instant: The Story of Polaroid".

  2. #2
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,531
    As it turns out, the film business has fallen so far that it may have stabilized. As Mooney said, among professionals, “there isn’t that much digital incursion left.”
    I don't see this stabilisation at all!


    At its peak in the late 1990s, Kodak sold about a billion rolls of film in the United States each year. Last year, it sold roughly 20 million.......But one product line continues to work for Kodak: the “one-time use,” or disposable, camera.... Amazingly, 31 million disposable cameras were sold in 2011.
    Either his figures do not fit, or he counts them apart. Eitherway I find this most irritating.


    I totally agree on the standing the name Polaroid still has.
    But I got no idea what the title of that article is hinting at. Polaroid as manufacturer is dead. Kodak, Fuji and Agfa are alive. Learning to survive from a deceased??

  3. #3
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Polaroid has become nothing more than a brand name. There is nothing left of Polaroid film except for a refurbished machine the Impossible Project bought.

    What the author is writing about is not using Polaroid as a good example, but as an example of what not to do. "Mistakes: It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."

    Another one of the problems with the article is that the author doesn't have any understanding of what it takes to manufacture film. Kodak can't do a small run, so it can't sell to tiny niche markets, like a Kodachrome run or a Plus-X run. The author has some good points, but aside from indexing executive pay to company profits, Kodak is doing all that it can.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    I don't see this stabilisation at all!




    Either his figures do not fit, or he counts them apart. Eitherway I find this most irritating.


    I totally agree on the standing the name Polaroid still has.
    But I got no idea what the title of that article is hinting at. Polaroid as manufacturer is dead. Kodak, Fuji and Agfa are alive. Learning to survive from a deceased??
    Agreed...can't really see the connection between Kodak and Polaroid. Polaroid cameras were a niche area so far as the general public were concerned...the novelty of instant pictures, but normally one copy only, quite expensive films, and fairly bulky cameras. For the casual snapshotter, a small 35mm, Instamatic or APS camera would score in most respects, and there were plenty of one-hour services if prints were needed quickly. And now, of course, digital.

    The Polaroid brand name does seem to hold some value, though any company needs to keep close control on branded third-party goods using its name.

  5. #5
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,531
    What does the author say?


    -) Kodak lost 98% revenue in the US-film market

    -) Kodak should dare to raise prices as aficionados would pay them

    -) Kodak should not try to sell film by means of first selling cheap cameras

    -) Kodak should sell single-use cameras

    -) Kodak should contract-manufacture for Lomography Comp.

    -) Kodak should stick to manufacture high-end photographic films as they are unique on the market and could set higher margins on them

    -) Kodak should make something from the goodwill its name has

  6. #6
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,618
    Images
    10
    The most impressive pair of numbers (to me at least) in that article is 20 million rolls of Kodak film sold versus 1 million packs of TIP film. Note that Kodak kicked Ektachrome into the curb because it made only a tiny percentage of their overall film sales so chances are more TIP film packs were sold than rolls of Ektachrome. Remember that TIP can neither match the precious colors of Ektachrome nor does a TIP photo have the resolution and the many flexible options for use and post processing. And it's much more expensive than a roll of Ektachrome and has only 8 vs. 36 frames, too.

    If Kodak couldn't sell more Ektachrome than TIP by a large factor, their strategy and marketing are abject failures, and blaming their demise on the "digital revolution" is nothing but a sleazy cover up for that.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  7. #7
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,531
    You are using attitudes of the past to reflect on consumer sales of today.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    339
    Images
    11
    I read this article as well. I didn't agree with the author that film prices need to jacked up to boutique prices.....ilford is a small company and they manage to sell film at competitive prices and if I'm correct make a profit. I do think Kodak was horribly managed. I think had they made a serious effort at digital (they had one of the first digital cameras) they would have had the resources to make a profit off of they're film and taken full advantage of the lomography movement.

  9. #9
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    If Kodak couldn't sell more Ektachrome than TIP by a large factor, their strategy and marketing are abject failures, and blaming their demise on the "digital revolution" is nothing but a sleazy cover up for that.
    Manufacturing costs and demand.

    The formulated batch sizes for Ektachrome were too large so they had to throw away barrels of dye and emulsion for each run, and the cost to reformulate the film wouldn't have turned a profit. When new regulations meant that Fujifilm had to reformulate Acros 400 in 120, it was discontinued due to lack of profit due to the cost of reformulation. The demand just wasn't there to support the cost of reformulation, for both Kodak and Fujifilm.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,152
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by cepwin View Post
    I read this article as well. I didn't agree with the author that film prices need to jacked up to boutique prices.....ilford is a small company and they manage to sell film at competitive prices and if I'm correct make a profit. I do think Kodak was horribly managed. I think had they made a serious effort at digital (they had one of the first digital cameras) they would have had the resources to make a profit off of they're film and taken full advantage of the lomography movement.
    sheet film prices for kodak films are already jacked up to be 2x the price of ilford
    seems to me they are already boutique prices ...
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin